Albemarle County Planning Commission

April 21, 2009

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach and Eric Strucko, Chairman.  Cal Morris and Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia, were absent. 

 

Other officials present were Steward Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proctor, Permit Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration;  Mark Graham, Director of Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. 

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:

 

Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.

 

            Public Hearing Item:

 

SP-2007-00052 Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion

PROPOSED: Addition of 14,000 square foot Family Life and Music Center for up to 500 attendees to existing church.

ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)

SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:  Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)

ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No

LOCATION: 1550 Simmons Gap Road (Route 663), 0.67 miles southeast of the intersection with Route 810

TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 9 Parcel 4

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall

(Scott Clark)

 

Mr. Clark made a power-point presentation and summarized the staff report.

·         Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:

1.       There are no known significant physical limitations that would prevent this expansion.

·         Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:

1.       The scale of the new building is large for a rural church. However, it is intended to accommodate the church’s existing activities, for which they currently do not have enough space.

·         Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP 2007-00052 Nortonsville Church of God with the conditions listed in the staff report, amended with the addition of the two sentences in condition 1 as follows:

1. The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for Nortonsville Church of God by TCS Engineering Co., LLC, dated April 3, 2009 (hereinafter, the "Conceptual Plan"), provided that the maximum building size shall be governed by Condition 2 rather than the Conceptual Plan. Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan may be approved by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with site plan review to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The arrangement of parking spaces may be altered so that County standards for safe and convenient access may be met. The total number of parking spaces shall be in accord with a parking study approved by zoning staff before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.

·         The two sentences added to condition 1 had inadvertently been left out of the conditions sent previously in the staff report.  The purpose of the two sentences is to ensure that when the request comes in for its site plan review the parking arrangement probably is going to change from what is on the conceptual plan to make some minor adjustments to ensure the traffic flow will work.  The church will be building part of a new road way and adding parking to mess in with the existing parking.  Also, the church does not have a parking study that shows exactly how many spaces will be needed for a 500 person facility, which is likely going to be more than what is shown in the conceptual plan.  Staff does not have any concerns because there is plenty of room on the site to accommodate the additional parking.  But staff does not have an exact number yet.  The purpose of the condition is to make sure when the applicants work that out with zoning during the site plan review that they don’t need to come back and amend the whole special use permit just because that number will change.   Otherwise, the recommended conditions are unchanged.

 

Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.

 

Mr. Loach noted that on page 3 in the last sentence under the section Conformity with the Comp Plan it says while this is a new structure it is larger than what most rural churches need for the activities held by an active congregation.  He asked if there is some specific methodology that staff used to determine that or was that just based on the size and experience with this size of a church.  He asked how staff determined that it was needed for the activities of a congregation of this size.

 

Mr. Clark replied that it was based on the statements of the applicants.  The church representatives said this is what they need to do the activities they have planned and in fact to meet the needs for activities that they are already having on site.  There is no standard in the Comp Plan.  The Comp Plan calls for meeting places that are traditional rural scaled, but it is not quantified. 

 

Mr. Loach asked how far the nearest residence is from the proposed new structure.

 

Mr. Clark replied that he did not have the exact distance, but pointed the location out on the slide of the closest residence being near the block of text.  Along the back line there is nothing visible.  Toward the east there are several very thin parcel lines that run down together and make up a wide driveway that goes to residential lots back behind and off to the corner of the church.  There really is only one residence close that is directly adjacent to the existing parking area.

 

Ms. Joseph asked staff to help clarify the church camp concept that is in the staff report. Normally they ask for a special use permit for a camp. She wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that from their conversation that it is not like a normal stay over camp but it is just like vacation bible school.

 

Mr. Clark replied that a camp in this case does not mean over night stays or summer week long programs and things like that.  It is more like Sunday school during the week as he understands it.  It is church education during the day and it does not require a separate special use permit.

 

Ms. Joseph said that this church will be used a whole lot more than they normally see a church used such as on Sundays and Wednesdays or whatever.  The church is going to be a very intensively used place.

 

Mr. Clark noted that there will be weekday and weekend use.  It is a fairly large facility.  Again, from what he had heard from the applicants they are trying to make space for a lot of things that they are already accommodating without the necessary buildings. 

 

Mr. Strucko said that basically they use the church this way now.

 

Mr. Clark noted that the church would be able to better accommodate some of the activities, such as musical events, indoors. 

 

Ms. Joseph hoped that staff is contemplating changing the ordinance because the way they have been interpreting federal law and the way our attorneys have told us to interpret it that they really don’t have any say over what goes on here and they are wasting a whole of people’s time.  This includes the time of staff, the Commission and the congregation if there is really nothing that they can do in this instance. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that this subject will be discussed at the rural area strategies meeting coming up with the Board. Mr. Kamptner can speak to this better.  But, generally speaking where they can focus their attention is on the health, safety and welfare impacts of a facility like this if they exist at all.  As an example, we need to review for insufficient road systems leading to the church and problems of that sort.  They are somewhat restricted.  Therefore, he felt that it very definitely deserves a different approach from our ordinance. They have been talking about this for a while anyway because so many of the church requests have the same kind of circumstances.  There have been occasions where they have seen a church in a particular location of a size impacting the neighboring areas and concerns raised regarding that where the special use permit process has given the Commission the opportunity to send the applicants back and to further look into what they are proposing.  So there is a fine line there that was not absolute in all cases.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked what would be staff’s guess as to the number of parking spaces that are going to be required.

 

Mr. Clark replied that right now the conceptual plan is showing 127 spaces, which staff’s normal calculation would be for 380 people.  It would be in the range of 160 to 170 parking spaces instead of the 127 for 500 people.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked will the parking stay in the current location.

 

Mr. Clark said that the existing church parking is around the church building and along the edge of road will stay where it is.  It is important to the church to have the new parking where they have shown it.  They may need to add some more in the existing area or possibly add some more around the loop at the back of the site.  There is a lot of open space back at the picnic shelter that could be used for some more parking if necessary.  They also expect that some more parking would go up front.  He suggested that the applicant could answer the question. 

 

Ms. Porterfield asked where the tot lot was located and if it was fenced. 

 

Mr. Scott pointed out the location of the tot lot.  He noted that there is a fence along the tree line, but he did not know if the tot lot would be fenced.

 

Ms. Porterfield suggested that if parking is back there that the tot lot be fenced so that there would not be children running across parking lots.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are site plan requirements for tot lots and other activities near by.  He could not tell her exactly how that works, but it would be addressed at the site plan stage.

 

Ms. Porterfield said that because of the size of the new building it is going to have a fire suppression sprinkler system. She assumes this is on a well and asked if there is enough pressure to run that system.

 

Mr. Clark replied that one of the conditions staff recommended was that the Fire Department would approve that.  There is no detailed water supply study at this time.  However, it is entirely possible that with water storage there would be an available supply of water for that.  

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if that would be required at the site plan stage, and Mr. Clark replied yes that it would be addressed at the site plan stage.

 

Mr. Edgerton noted that he was concerned that from the plat he could not figure out what parking existed since it did not show up on the drawing very well.  The staff report says there were 76 or 79 parking spaces.

 

Mr. Clark noted that he rechecked it earlier today and found 79 existing parking spaces.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that they are proposing 76 plus 79 spaces which add up to 155.  Staff just gave them a much bigger number.  He was concerned that even with that larger number it was not a realistic amount for a building of this size which they are hoping to be able to put 500 people in.  Their math based on the staff report suggested that if they did use the building to capacity that every car that came would have to have over 3 people in it with the spaces they have.  He was concerned about putting that off and not dealing with it until the site plan because it may not work at all.

 

Mr. Clark noted that one (1) space per three (3) seats use to be the requirement for churches.  Now they don’t have a fixed requirement for rural churches and ask the applicant to do a parking study to meet their needs.  A lot of times staff does fall back on that 1 per 3 number that they did use for quite a while. 

 

Mr. Edgerton expressed some concern that this site will be overwhelmed with parking to meet the requirements.  With that in mind he was a little surprised with condition 2 that somehow the building that was shown very clearly as 1,400 square feet grew to 1,550 square feet.  He questioned how that happened.

 

Mr. Clark noted that staff generally tries to avoid the applicant to have to come back for another special use permit amendment. 

 

Mr. Edgerton said that when they reference a conceptual plan that shows 1,400 square feet and then they amend it by 150 he gets a little nervous about whether the Commission is actually reviewing anything other than the concept.  He noted that maybe that is all the Commission is being asked to do here.

 

Mr. Clark said that certainly the Commission or Board could change that number.  He believed that he added just a little over 10 percent to be absolutely sure that something that was generally the same scale but that would allow for the changes that typically happens during the site plan process when things get moved around and changed a bit.  Overall it is not a major change that would bump it into a different category of scale.

 

Mr. Edgerton said perhaps the applicant could reassure him a little more.

 

Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

 

John Grady, representative for the Nortonsville Church of God, said that he would try to clear up a couple of the concerns he had heard. 

·         Regarding existing uses or activities there are no more planned uses or activities other than what is going on at the church right now.  This is not a growth plan.  This is to take care of what is currently going on and taking the relief and some of the use off the main sanctuary.  There is additional room for the church to grow with numbers in the existing sanctuary.  What they are trying to do is develop a family life center, music center and a gymnasium that may be used by its church personnel keeping their personnel and their children there and around the area.

·         Ms. Porterfield addressed the need for fire suppression.  The building is being designed by an architect and they are laying it out it will be fire stopped at the right square footage so they will not have to use a fire suppression system.    The Building Code requires a fire suppression system at 12,000 square feet.  They will have sections that are 10,000 square feet or less so that a sprinkler system is not necessary.  They have already gone over that with an architect and engineer and it can be done by just building material.  Regarding the response time Earlysville Fire Department would normally get this, but they have talked to the people at Dike.  The Dike Fire Station, although it is in Greene County, is only 2 miles away from the church.    The fire call will go to Earlysville, but Dike will respond as well.  So that means Dike Fire Station would be there much sooner than the 14 minutes that is indicated in the staff report.  They will open their doors to area residents during emergencies or disasters.

 

Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant.

 

Mr. Loach asked what the hours of operation would be and if there would be any commercial use of the building.  For instance, his church has a hall and they rent it out for weddings.

 

Mr. Grady replied not rental, but that the church has concerts that currently use the sanctuary that would be moved over to this.  There will be a stage behind the basketball goals.  But, he was not aware of any leasing.

 

Nelson Morris, Pastor of Nortonville Church of God, said that the church uses the present sanctuary for weddings for church members that attend.

 

Mr. Loach asked if the church is used for the wedding reception and there will be cooking.

 

Pastor Morris replied that right now they use the existing sanctuary and fellowship halls for those types of events right now.  It includes weddings, receptions and things as such. 

 

Mr. Loach asked if this is a 7 day a week operation and what are the hours of operation.

 

Pastor Morris replied that they only have 2 or 3 staff members there Tuesday through Friday and sometimes on Saturday.  Then they have Wednesday night and Sunday services and a Tuesday night prayer meeting.  Usually everything is done by 9:00 p.m.  It is certainly not going to be consistent day meeting activities.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked how big a wedding can the church handle in the current sanctuary and if they anticipate being able to increase that number with the new buildings.

 

Pastor Morris replied about 250 people and that if they need to move the reception over to the new building they would do so.  They would try to accommodate whatever the need is.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked for some discussion about the parking.

 

Mr. Grady said that the existing parking around the sanctuary around the back, the sides and up the northeast property line is the 70+ spaces that staff referred to. They were hoping to not have to put in any more parking spaces than what they are showing now in front of the new building.  That is something they will talk with Mr. Clark about when they do the site plan submittal.  They certainly don’t want to put in more parking spaces than necessary.  There are 79 existing parking spaces.  Staff had some heart burn about 3 or 4 spots that were out to the road because they were parallel to some of the entrances.  They can make those spaces go away.  If there is an engineering concern that they make block or restrict site distance they will certainly do what they need to do.

 

Mr. Strucko invited public comment. 

 

Eunice Steen, an adjacent property owner, said that she wished that the church would not expand.   They have been her neighbors for 35 years and Pastor Allison has been there for 18 years.  They are very good neighbors.  However they are very noisy and trashy neighbors.    The groundwater pressure is much lower since the new church was built 10 years ago.  There are a couple of misconceptions.  The ground is not level.  The reason the ground appears level is because in previous buildings they basement and all of the stuff was pushed over into a deep gully that is about 8’ high and she was contending with mud washes. She was contending with her lawn and garden being washed.  There was one small house adjacent to the church when it was first built in 1950.  There are now 11 residences. The proposed building is about 100’ in front of the closest residence.  The parking is about 50’ from her house.  There is no longer a fence because when they made that parking they pushed the fence over.  Their motto is a growing church for a growing community.  This building is to accommodate their growth.  She was saying that when a church grows in town or out if the location is not permissible they move to a different location and sell the old church to a different one. She thought there were many parcels of land within a 2 to 5 mile radius owned by church members where they could expand.  If this is real rural more expansion commercial like this is going to make it unfit for residential until they bring in public water and sewer and control mud slides.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked where her property is located.

 

Ms. Steen replied that it was where the 93 is located.   The volley ball court and basketball court area was a deep ravine and it got pushed in.  It is now washing down.  She has let the area grow up in woods in the front and back since her mother passed away.  It affects her 3 acres more than it does any other neighbor.  There may be some traffic problems getting in and out at times.  At the corner of her property is a stream that goes into Beaver Creek, which is where the mud is flowing down the back carrying with it a lot of trash and soccer balls, baseballs and basketballs.   She felt that it was too much for a rural area.  There was too much under pavement and asphalt and too much activity for that area and that narrow of a road.

 

There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.

 

Mr. Loach suggested that this might be a case where good fencing makes good neighbors.  He suggested adding some landscaping and fencing along her side of the parking lot to help improve this.  He felt that some plantings or vegetation might help out in this situation.

 

Mr. Clark noted that staff had conceived that early in the review.  But, because the parking along that edge is so close to the property line there is no room between the parking spaces and the edge of the property to do planting.  Behind the parking there is room but that is past where the existing parking is.  He was not sure about landscaping between the parking and the property line because there is not really much room.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the parking area comply with setback rule and is it appropriately off the property line itself.

 

Mr. Clark replied that there were no conditions in the prior special use permit for commercial setbacks on parking.  It was not done in this case.

 

Mr. Loach asked if it was allowed as part of the conditions for the church to put the plantings and the fence on her property if she allows it.

 

Mr. Kamptner noted that they had done something like that before provided that permission is granted.  Part of the problem is that unless she volunteers to accept the fencing and vegetation it does take away from her use of the property to a certain extent.   

 

Mr. Loach favored churches getting larger, but was trying to resolve the issues.

 

Mr. Grady noted that the church would certainly offer screening and a fence. They know that they have approximately 4’ to 5’ from the end of the parking space to the property line.   They will do whatever screening is required.  They will offer something on a site plan.

 

Mr. Loach noted that his other concern was in regards to the fire suppression which was part of the conditions.  He would hope with 500 people that they make sure that there will be adequate water pressure in the site plan review. 

 

Mr. Clark said that staff felt it was important in this case to include a condition for fire/rescue approval.

 

Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the applicant indicated that the architect was somehow going to work around that requirement so they would not have to fire suppression in there.  He asked with this condition it would require that if it was over 12,000 square feet.

 

Mr. Clark noted that in talking with the Inspections Department the Building code requires sprinklers for new structures of 12,000 square feet or more. They did not talk about any exceptions to that rule if the building is broken up into small fire proofed sections.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that worried him that if there were 500 people and no fire suppression system. He agreed with Mr. Loach that they should hold firm on that.  It worried him that their architect said they could work around that.

 

Mr. Clark pointed out that it was explained that they would not be able to get the building permit and the certificate of occupancy if they did not have that. If there is some way around that rule that is permissible under the Building Code that could be done through engineering that would still have to be approved before those permits could be issued.

 

Ms. Porterfield questioned the size of the facility with the proposed 500 people fitting into the 300 parking spaces.  From the neighbor’s viewpoint she did not understand the trash situation.  Also, she was trying to figure out who was going to use the basketball and other facilities.

 

Mr. Grady said that he did not know where the 500 people came from. The current Sunday morning services normally run from 220 to 250, which is the largest service of the day.  When they are talking about some 400 or 500 people it may be for a wedding that now has around 350 people.  That wedding could take place in the existing sanctuary. But they would rather take some of the heat off of the existing building and offer these services in the multi-purpose room.

 

Mr. Strucko pointed out that in the chart for occupancy it says the number on Saturday is 500 and Sunday is 980.  There are two services being an evening and morning worship on Sunday.  On Friday the occupancy is 381.  On Wednesday it is 360.  It drops off on Monday to 72.  He was not sure if these are absolute maximums.  This says it is the occupancy estimates.

 

Pastor Morris pointed out that they were asked to project what would be the total usage per week to include the total attendance for Sunday School, morning worship, Sunday night and Wednesday night to get one common number as to how many people may attend during a week’s time.  They were told to project what would be a usage for the total there.  Admittedly they misunderstood the question.  That does not mean that at any particular service that number of 500 is there.

 

Ms. Joseph pointed out that the numbers in the table had to do with the septic. The projections are what is the flow going to be and how big the septic site should be.

 

Pastor Morris noted that there could be up to 500 people attending a concert or wedding.  But that is not a normal usage of it on a regular basis.  During the week there are only 3 staff people there during the day along with those attending their regular services.  There is not a 9 to 5 Monday through Friday situation where there is 300 to 500 people there during the week.

 

Ms. Joseph asked how many people does their sanctuary seat.

 

Pastor Morris replied that it was 325 maximum seating.  They have a fellowship hall that will seat about that same amount.  Then the old sanctuary would seat about 140, which would now be used as the youth room.  For normal events other than funerals and weddings the church is able to seat everyone.

 

Mr. Loach supported SP-2007-00052 with conditions as amended by staff. 

 

Ms. Joseph asked if he wanted to talk about the screening.

 

Mr. Loach added that the screening for the neighbor be provided.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that it seems from the aerial that there may already be vegetation right up to the property line on the adjacent property.  In the slide it looks like the trees go up to the property.  He asked if the Commission prefers that screening to be in the form of a fence.

 

Mr. Loach said that he would like the condition to state that the church work out with the adjoining neighbor some sort of screening condition be it a fence or shrubbery and trees, for whatever is acceptable.  He understands the neighbor’s concern.  He thought that the fencing or the shrubs may cut down on some of the noise that gets there and possibly some of the trash.  If they can come to an agreement he felt that is a plus.

 

Mr. Kamptner asked if that is for the length of the parking spaces or that whole side of the parcel.    That can be worked out between the neighbor and church.

 

Mr. Loach asked that it be an acceptable length to accommodate the neighbors.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the Commission was okay with condition 2.  There was some earlier discussion about the size of the structure not to exceed 15,500 square feet versus what is on the site plan.

 

Ms. Porterfield preferred it be the 14,000 square feet as shown on the site plan.

 

Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission not cut it completely to the chase. They have had circumstances where they have had repeated requests.  Normally they ask for a little bit of wiggle room for folks so that it is not absolute at the dimensions.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if the church has drawn the plans up yet because this is simply a schematic.

 

Mr. Clark replied that the church does have detailed building plans worked up.  Most of the drawings he has are interior drawings that are not too relevant to a land use review.  But, he does know that the church has had pretty detailed drawings worked up by their architect.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked at the 14,000 square feet, and Mr. Clark replied yes.

 

Ms. Porterfield suggested conditioning it to 14,050 square feet.

 

Mr. Loach asked for a wiggle figure from planning staff.

 

Mr. Clark replied that at least 500 square feet would be necessary just for changes happening during the site plan process.

 

Mr. Loach amended the motion to include 14,500 square feet.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if the fence could be required on both sides because they are going to end up with a parking lot on the opposite side when this building is being put up to take care of the neighbor opposite.  What they are trying to do is screen the parking lots from both sides.  She assumed that the parking lot would go all the way across when they build this building.  She asked if they could screen the parking lots from both sides and if he would accept that in the motion.

 

Mr. Loach amended the condition to state that the fencing and the cover be provided for those neighbors that make accommodations with the church to have it.  This way if the other neighbor wants it fine, but if not it would be okay. Obviously the one neighbor has expressed some concerns.

 

Mr. Clark pointed out that the difference between the two sides is parcel 96H, which is not directly adjacent to the church property.  There are several small parcel lines that come down in between there where there is a drive way to the houses that are farther in the back of the parcel.   There are some trees there and it is not as direct.

 

Mr. Loach asked that they keep the condition open to what he said so to accommodate the neighbors.  Then they can work it out with the neighbors on either side within the structures that they have either within their own grounds or within the neighbor’s property. 

 

Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Kamptner if he could write a condition like that.

 

Mr. Kamptner replied absolutely.  On the lower side closest to 96H he assumed that all of the fencing and landscaping, if the neighbors decided it was needed, would be on the church property.

 

Mr. Loach replied that was correct.

 

Mr. Clark said that hopefully fencing will work there.  There is an area where a septic field will come down close to that property line where it would be difficult to have plantings because it would interfere. Hopefully this working out process can also accommodate that.

 

Mr. Strucko reiterated that Mr. Loach’s motion is on the table for the conditions as amended by staff, plus the screening requirements and the size.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if a dumpster enclosure would be required because it would help with the trash situation.

 

Mr. Cilimberg noted that the dumpster would be covered during the site plan review.

 

Ms. Joseph suggested that on page 4 regarding the recommended action that staff should change the name of the church.

 

Motion:  Mr. Loach moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approve SP-2007-00052, Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion with the conditions as recommended by staff, as amended, including adding the conditions about the screening and size. 

 

1.       The development of the site shall be in general accord with the “Conceptual Site Plan” prepared for Nortonsville Church of God by TCS Engineering Co., LLC, dated April 3, 2009 (hereinafter, the "Conceptual Plan"), provided that the maximum building size shall be governed by Condition 2 rather than the Conceptual Plan. Minor variations from the Conceptual Plan may be approved by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with site plan review to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The arrangement of parking spaces may be altered so that County standards for safe and convenient access may be met. The total number of parking spaces shall be in accord with a parking study approved by zoning staff before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.

2.       The footprint of the building identified on the Conceptual Plan as “Proposed Multi-Purpose Building” shall not exceed 14,500 square feet.

3.       A dwelling used by the church's staff, located within the church, may be permitted as an accessory use.

4.       All structures shall meet commercial setback standards as set forth in Section 21.7(b) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The tot lot is not subject to this condition.

5.       A fire-suppression water supply meeting the approval of the Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department shall be required before approval of the preliminary site plan for this use.

6.       Health Department approval of well and/or septic systems.

7.       All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.

8.       There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;

9.       If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced within sixty (60) months after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted there under shall thereupon terminate.

10.   The church should work out an agreement with the adjoining neighbor(s) to provide some sort of screening be it a fence, shrubbery, trees, or whatever is acceptable.  The screening is to reduce the noise and trash.  On the lower side closest to Parcel 96H, all of the fencing and landscaping, if the neighbors decided it was needed, would be on the church property.    Note:  The fencing and other screening should be provided for those neighbors that make accommodations with the church to have it. 

 

The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.  (Morris absent) 

 

Mr. Strucko said that SP-2007-00052 Nortonsville Church of God Facility Expansion would go to the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.

 

Return to exec summary